I think "avoiding bias" is as non-sensical as a general concept as "fighting terrorism". Bias is inevitable. You can avoid a specific bias - several even - but

I think "avoiding bias" is as non-sensical as a general concept as "fighting terrorism". Bias is inevitable. You can avoid a specific bias - several even - but avoiding all biases is impossible as the mere decision of what data to include or exclude and how to present them will already introduce bias regardless of any bias that may already present in the data itself. An obvious example of this is in "serious" journalism where apparently even in the absence of an obvious or explicit editorial bias there seems to be a widespread idea that when reporting on statements made by public officials and such it is "good journalism" to present them without any judgement on their factuality, not even by contrasting them with their context. Even if this has the negative effect of indicating to the reader by implication that a clearly incorrect claim is correct because it appears alongside genuine attempts at factual reporting without any indication of contradicting it. Presumably the ideological justification is that an educated reader will deduct from the facts presented whether the statement is correct or not, which of course completely ignores everything we know about propaganda and psychology (let alone media literacy).